Notes

n.1The Mahā­māyā­tantra clearly postdates the Guhya­samāja­tantra because of the instances of intertextuality indicated below in notes 3 and 51–55. The Guhya­samāja­tantra, and similar works like the Guhya­garbha­tantra, demonstrate significant iconographic and ritual innovations over those works typically identified as Yoga‌ tantras, such as the Sarva­tathāgata­tattva­saṃgraha. Beginning in approximately the eighth century ᴄᴇ, the pacific and regal Vairocana was replaced at the center of tantric maṇḍalas by deities associated with the vajra family, frequently in the wrathful form of Akṣobhya known as Heruka. This shift is related to the introduction of transgressive practices and a wrathful, mortuary aesthetic into the established structure of the Yoga‌ tantras, leading some Indian Buddhist commentators to begin to refer to Mahāyoga, or “Great yoga,” tantras. In the later Tibetan doxographical schemes of the New Schools these tantras would be identified as Father tantras (pha rgyud), joining the Yoginītantras in the class of Unexcelled Yoga tantra (yoga­niruttara­tantra). The Yoginītantras would build upon the framework of these tantras as they introduced their own unique iconographies and practices.

n.2On the dating of the Cakra­saṃvara­tantra, see Gray (2007) pp. 11–14, and Sanderson (2009) pp. 158–69.

n.3Verses 3.12–14 of the Mahā­māyā­tantra contain a number of close correspondences with verses 12.52, 53, and 55 of the Guhya­samāja­tantra.

n.4Regarding Ratnākaraśānti’s dating, see Isaacson (2001) p. 458, n. 4.

n.5For the dating of Kṛṣṇavajra, see Isaacson (2001) p. 457, n. 2.

n.6Tāranātha, F.3.a.7–3.b.6. Although there is no definitive evidence, some assert that Kaṇha and Kṛṣnācārya are identical.

n.7’gos lo tsa wa (1988), pp. 208–9.

n.8See bibliography.

n.9The Cakra­saṃvara­tantra shares this abrupt beginning. For an in-depth discussion of the implications of this style of introduction, see Gray (2007), pp. 28–35.

n.10S, F.108.b, lines 6–7. His attribution is somewhat problematic as he contradicts the tantra by stating that the recipient of the discourse is Buddhaḍākinī, not Mahāmāyā.

n.11G, pp. 2–4.

n.12English (2002), p. 47.

n.13G, p. 6: saiṣeti heruka­rupā Mahā­māyā. Elsewhere [G, p. 20] Ratnākaraśānti identifies Mahāmāyā as the fundamental identity of both the male Heruka and his consort, Buddhaḍākinī. He writes, “The lord of the maṇḍala is the glorious Heruka, who is Mahāmāyā; the vidyā Buddhaḍākinī is also Mahāmāyā because they both possess a singular intrinsic nature” (maṇḍalādhipatiḥ śrī­heruko mahā­māyā, tadvidyā api buddha­ḍākinī mahā­māyā tayoḥ eka­svabhāvatvāt).

n.14See particularly Jamgön Kongtrul (2008), pp. 69–70 and 183–86. He writes, “The Mahā­māyā and other tantras set forth the threefold [formulation consisting of] appearance, mantra and reality [yogas]. These three apply to both path and result; and within the path itself, to both the creation phase and completion phase.” (We have emended “shape” to “appearance” to conform with the terminology used in this translation.) Though the concepts of the development and completion stages were present in the Indian Buddhist tantric tradition, they never reached the degree of uniformity there that they did in the Tibetan tradition. The terms do not appear anywhere in the commentarial literature of the Mahā­māyā­tantra.

n.15S, F.109.b.3–4: sngags zhes bya ba ni mig la sogs pa’i gnas drug tu bkod pa’i oM la sogs pa’i sngags so / dbyibs zhes bya ba ni og gnas ’byung ba’i tshul dang / mdog dang dbyibs dang phyag dang zhal gyi bdag nyid can no / chos zhes bya ba ni kun brtags pa thams cad las rnam par grol ba’i rang bzhin nyid do.

n.16G, p. 28: etaduktaṃ bhavati buddha­ḍākinyādi­yogaṃ kuṅkumāruṇaṃ kṛtvā vīrabhājane kuṅkumāruṇaṃ praṇavaṃ vicintya tadbindau vīraṃ vinasya praṇa­varaśmi­bhirvīra­maruṇī­kṛtya vīrā­daruṇaraśmi­rekhādvayaṃ niḥsārya ekasyā agre pāśaṃ dvitīyasyā aṅkuśaṃ vicintayet | sādhyaṃ pāśena kaṇḍe baddhvā aṅkuśena hṛdi viddhvā kṣipramākṛṣymāṇaṃ vicintayet.

n.17On the ingestion of sexual fluids in these tantras, see Dalton (2004), pp. 14–17.

n.18S, F.213.a.

n.19G, p. 37: mahāphalāni tāni jñātvetyarthaḥ.

n.20We thank Jacob Dalton for bringing this technique of concealment to our attention.

n.21The description that follows organizes the sequence of visualization following the sādhana composed by Ratnākaraśānti as preserved in the SM.

n.22The fact that the language of the yoginīs’ song (3.21) is different from that of the root verses is entirely lost in the Tibetan translation. Ratnākaraśānti’s sādhana preserves the original, which is composed in a form of Prākrit distinct from the rest of the Sanskrit verses.

n.23“Who destroys all that exists”: this translates the Sanskrit bhūta­saṃhāra­kāriṇī (Tib. ’byung ba yang dag sdud mdzad ma). We have pushed the translation toward the more extreme end of the term’s semantic range in a nod to Ratnākaraśānti, who glosses the term with pralayakartī, “she who causes annihilation.” [G, p 5] This refers to the dissolution of the universe that comes at the end of the cosmogonic stages of emanation, absorption, and dissolution of the universe that are standard in Brahmanical cosmology.

n.24“Are to be praised”: here we have followed the Sanskrit attested by Ratnākaraśānti, which is quite different from the Tibetan translation: the methods (Skt. upāyāḥ) of those who are endowed with the five wisdoms (Skt. pañca­jñānināṃ) are to be praised (Skt. pragīyante) [G, pp. 9–10]. This is an interesting verse as it seems thematically disjuntive with the preceding and subsequent lines and may have been inserted here by a later redactor. Krṣṇavajra, who is otherwise attentive to every verse, does not acknowledge it at all. Ratnākaraśānti, on the other hand, uses this verse as the basis for an extensive discourse linking into Yogācāra philsophy.

n.25Ratnākaraśānti identifies the yoginī, mother of yoga (Skt: yogamātā), and the entirety of the three worlds (Skt: traidhātukaṃ aśeṣataḥ) as the praiseworthy methods of the previous verse [G, p. 10].

n.26The second line of this verse begins a new sequence of verses that indentify the accomplishments that will come to the yogī who successfully accomplishes the practices of the Mahā­māyā Tantra. It concludes in verse 1.15.

n.27“Weaves Indra’s Web”: this translates the Sanskrit indrav­jālaṃ karoti, which is rendered as mig ’phrul byed in the Tibetan.

n.28The Sanskrit term vidyā (Tib. rig pa) appears twice in this verse with different connotations. According to Ratnākaraśānti, the first instance is as the techinical term for the central female deity of the maṇḍala, Mahāmāyā, and has therefore been left untranslated. The second instance is in specific reference to the knowledge (Skt. prajñā) that arises from meditation and has here been translated as “knowledge” [G, p. 13].

n.29The Tibetan translation adds an additional rtag tu, meaning “constant,” which is not attested in any of the commentaries. Because it appears to be largely redundant, it has been omitted here.

n.30This verse is complicated by two substantial variants. Where the Tibetan translation reads “practice of supreme benefit” (mchog tu phan pa), Ratnākaraśānti reads “practice of supreme settling” (Skt. paramāhita/Tib. mchog tu bzhag pa) [G, p. 19]. The similarity of the Sanskrit terms for “supreme benefit” (parama hita) and for “supreme settling” (parama āhita) probably led to a scribal error resulting in different versions of the verse. Because the version found in the Tibetan translation is attested in Kṛṣṇavajra’s commentary, it was followed here, though Ratnākaraśānti’s reading seems clearer. Where the Tibetan translation reads sangs rgyas kun gyi rang bzhin ’bab (“become the nature of all buddhas”), Kṛṣṇavajra reads sangs rgyas rang bzhin thams cad ’gyur (“everything becomes the nature of the Buddha”) [S, F.206.b] which is in agreement with the Sanskrit attested by Ratnākaraśānti and which is followed here.

n.31Ratnākaraśānti and Kṛṣṇavajra are unanimous in identifying the spiritual attainment of the great commitment with the perfection of the great pill. This relationship is not clear in the Tibetan translation.

n.32“Mahāmāyā”: though the Tibetan verse reads rgyu ’phrul chen po here, Ratnākaraśānti attests to Mahā­māyā [G, p. 20].

n.33This verse appears to be slightly different in the recension of the tantra used by Ratnākaraśānti. A tentative prose reconstruction would read: “To you (Skt. tvām), the vidyā Mahāmāyā who is the means for accomplishing the three worlds (mahā­māyāṃ vidyāṃ trailokya­sādhanīṃ) I will explain (tad ahaṃ vakṣyāmi) the Vīra, the most excellent among the great yogīs (mahā­yoginām divyam) along with the garland of syllables (akṣarapaṅktibhiḥ).” [G, p. 21].

n.34Tathāgatas, or “thus-gone ones” here: where the Tibetan translation reads de bzhin gshegs pa kun, Ratnākaraśānti attests to the Sanskrit tāthāgātī, a feminine derivative adjective formed from tathāgata [G, p. 22]. In his reading the term is in the singular. Thus in at least one recension of the text the line would read “the splendor of the thus-gone lady.”

n.35Kṛṣṇavajra reads a different line here. In the recension of the root text available to him, the final line of the text as translated in Tibetan is gar ni thugs rjes bsams bzhin mdzad (“He dances with compassion according to his whim”) [S, F.208.a].

n.36“Virility” translates the Sanskrit vīrya and the Tibetan brtson ’grus.

n.37There are a couple of noteworthy variants of this verse found in commentarial works. The version from the Degé edition translated here, which is supported in Kṛṣṇavajra’s commentary, reads: “Vidyā! In the three worlds (Tib. ’jig rten gsum po na) there is nothing equal to my knowledge (Tib. nga yi rig dang mnyam pa med).” The recension of the tantra used by Ratnākaraśānti appears to have, instead, “there is nothing (Skt. nāsti) like you (Skt. te sadṛśī) in the triple worlds (Skt. triṣu lokeṣu)” [G, p 21]. Taranātha attests to yet another variation. In his Lamp of Suchness [F.2.b] he cites the same line as “Vidyā! In the three worlds there is nothing like you apart from me” (Tib. rig pa ’jig rten gsum po na / khyod dang mnyams pa nga las med).

n.38“Sustain the upward breath”: this translates the Sanskrit ucvāsasam kurute, which is rendered in the Tibetan translation as dbug gtang bar bya.

n.39Ratnākara­śānti reads “restriction” (Skt. yantraṇa) in place of “garland” (Skt. mālā) [G, p. 27]. In his commentary he connects both restriction and retention with the movements of the breath (yantraṇā dhāraṇā ca prāṇavāyoḥ). A variant of the first line of this verse is attested, in Sanskrit, in a sādhana associated with the Mahā­māyā­tantra found in the Sādhana­mālā (#221 in SM vol. 2, pp. 434–36): na japaṃ na vrataṃ tasya nopavāso vidhīyate. Kṛṣṇavajra confirms this variant in his commentary.

n.40“Wisdom syllable”: according to Ratnākaraśānti, this term only appears in some recensions of the text [G, p. 27]. As he does not gloss it in his commentary it seems it did not appear in his recension of choice.

n.41Ratnākaraśānti attests to the syllable ā [G, p 27], which has been used here instead of the syllable a as given in the Tibetan translation.

n.42Kṛṣṇavajra reads kṣa in place of khe [S, F.211.a]; Ratnākaraśānti reads “white” in place of “red” [G, p. 30].

n.43The Tibetan syntax differs significantly from the Sanskrit, which has been translated here. In the Sanskrit the subject, the yogīs, is in the plural, not the instrumental as in the Tibetan. The object, the posture (mudrā), is in the accusative singular, not the genitive as in the Tibetan, which construes with the term “sporting lion” (siṃha­vikrīḍitā). The Sanskrit attested by Ratnākaraśānti could read as follows: siṃha­vikrīḍitāṃ mudrāṃ bandha­yanti yoginaḥ [G, p. 32].

n.44“Awakened ones”: the Sanskrit word here is saṃbuddhāḥ, which conveys a slightly different sense than the Tibetan term used, sangs rgyas rnams. Whereas the latter could easily be translated as “buddhas,” the former is best rendered as “awakened ones.”

n.45“Essence of the substances”: Ratnākaraśānti reads “the essence of buddhahood” (Skt. buddhātman) in place of “the essence of the substances” (Tib. rdzas kyi bdag nyid). [G, p. 34].

n.46“Mothers of the spirits”: we have here followed Ratnākaraśānti in reading the Sanskrit term gūḍhamātaraḥ [G, p. 36], which appears as ’byung po mi rnams in Tibetan translation. In South Asian mythology, the gūḍhas are a class of beings that attend upon Kubera, the lord of wealth.

n.47Kṛṣṇavajra identifies this line as corrupt [S, F.213.b]. He notes that it should read “from the eighth until the fourteenth,” which is the span of seven days mentioned in the next verse.

n.48Ratnākaraśānti cites a different line of verse here, which collapses this line and the first line of the next verse: “On the night of the spirits (Skt. bhūtarau) these fruits of accomplishment (Skt. siddhārtha­phalāni) are to be placed inside a jackal (Skt. śivāṅgamadhye sthāpyānti).” [G, p. 37].

n.49According to Ratnākaraśānti’s commentary, the deity has a purely white face in the west [G, p. 39].

n.50“Yoginī”: Ratnākaraśānti reads “yogas” (Skt. yogāḥ) [G, p. 41] where the Tibetan has “yoginī” (Tib. rnal ’byor ma).

n.51This line corresponds closely with verse 12.52, line 2 of the Guhya­samāja­tantra.

n.52Ratnākaraśānti reads siddhānāṃ kanyām, “the maidens of the siddhas” [G, p. 41]. This line corresponds closely with verse 12.52, line 3 of the Guhya­samāja­tantra.

n.53This line corresponds closely with verse 12.53, line 2 of the Guhya­samāja­tantra.

n.54This line corresponds closely with verse 12.55, line 1 of the Guhya­samāja­tantra.

n.55This line corresponds closely with verse 12.55, line 2 of the Guhya­samāja­tantra.

n.56In his commentary on verse 3.18 Kṛṣṇavajra gives the mantra as oṁ a guhya aguhya bhakṣa abhakṣe hūṁ [S, F.216.a].

n.57Both Ratnākaraśānti [G, p. 160] confirms a genitive relationship between the terms “vajra yoginīs” and “realization,” which has been followed here. The Tibetan editions all contain the agentive kyis.

n.58This song has been translated from the Prākrit as it appears in Ratnākaraśānti’s sādhana [SM #239, p. 460]: hale sai viasia kamalu pabohiu vajjeṁ | a la la la la ho mahāsuheṇa ārohiu ṇacceṁ | ravikiraṇeṇa paphulliu kamalu mahā­suheṇa | a la la la la ho mahā­suheṇa ārohiu ṇacceṁ.